Truman gets boost in funds, but future uncertain

New funding formula proposed would alter how universities receive money

Comment

By Jason Hunsicker/@JHunsickerKDE

Kirksville Daily Express - Kirksville, MO

By Jason Hunsicker/@JHunsickerKDE

Posted Feb. 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

By Jason Hunsicker/@JHunsickerKDE

Posted Feb. 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Kirksville

A battle waged in Jefferson City could have significant ramifications in Kirksville as the state legislature examines the future of Missouri higher education funding.

At his State of the State address last week, Mo. Gov. Jay Nixon announced an additional $34 million for higher education funds to be allocated through a performance formula agreed upon by Missouri's public university presidents, numerous boards, elected officials and the governor himself.

Simultaneously, the Joint Commission on Education, a group of Missouri state senators and representatives, was charged through House Bill 1731 to examine and overhaul the entire framework for funding the state's public higher education institutions. And while those potential changes are still at least two years away, the uncertain future leaves a "disconcerting" feeling for people like Truman State University President Dr. Troy Paino.

"Where this all ends up is anyone's guess," Paino said.

Truman State is projected to receive a funding increase in the governor's proposed budget. It would be the first increase Paino has seen since arriving at Truman in 2008, and the prospect for even a few more dollars has him feeling "giddy," he said.

Nixon's current budget awards all new higher education revenue through performance evaluations. The universities had reportedly sought for half of all new revenues to be awarded through performance measures, with the remaining half allocated through traditional funding.

Performances are based on five categories, four of which consist of elements such as student retention, degrees awarded, financial efficiency and quality of learning.

The fifth measure was selected by each university and subjected to state approval. Truman selected improving students' critical thinking abilities, measured through a combination of scores on the Collegiate Learning Assessment and senior portfolio project evaluations.

It was the only measure in which Truman failed to hit the required mark, resulting in it being eligible for 80 percent of the $1.7 million it could have possibly received in performance-based funds.

"The one we didn't achieve was the one that we picked that's consistent with our mission, and that's to demonstrate improvement in critical thinking," Paino said. "That's a very difficult needle to move, quite honestly, and we saw only a slight tick down in our assessment...but any tick down is enough to prevent us from getting our full funding."

Paino has no regrets about the decision to pursue the critical thinking goal, saying he believes performance-based funding calls for measures that cause both self-reflection by universities and, hopefully, improvement in areas that fit the various missions of each institution.

"Even though it did cost us money in the first year, it was a great wakeup call," Paino said.

Despite the increase, Truman State still needs to pursue about $1 million through a combination of budget cuts and revenue enhancements simply to keep up with fixed-inflationary costs and a desire to give employees raises.

All of the "low hanging fruit" has been cut and "rotting on the ground for some time," Paino said, leading to a difficult path toward a working budget. He said Truman would look at consolidating operations if possible, cutting administrative costs, and seeking new revenue through Truman Institute programs and enrollment.

A new capital campaign to build the university's already record-level endowment will also begin soon.

Meanwhile, efforts by the Joint Committee on Education continue and the group released a new proposed funding formula Monday. It calls for 10 percent of university funding to be subject to performance evaluations each year, and is a largely cost-based model with measures such as faculty salaries and benefits, office supplies, sponsored research expenses, conferences, community services, enrollment and financial aid.

The committee's formula would require an additional $388 million to be fully funded.

Paino said he respects the work put in by the committee's members, while cautioning against a formula strictly measuring "inputs."

"It shouldn't be merely focused on inputs, it shouldn't be focused on enrollment, credit production, if you will, those sorts of inputs," he said. "I think that is a backward-looking approach to funding and I really believe that what we need to focus like a laser beam is what are students learning, and can we demonstrate students have the ability to apply that learning to new settings?

"We know we're preparing students for a rapidly-changing world, and that many of our graduates, 10 years from now, will be doing jobs that aren't even in existence right now.

"We need to create a funding mechanism that frees up universities to innovate and move toward those goals, and not something that's going to get us focusing on inputs."

Public comment on the committee's proposal is open until Feb. 11. The committee plans to release a final report Feb. 15, and any plan would be subject to approval by the House, Senate and Gov. Nixon.